In 1973, a black inmate in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff, representing himself, asked the court for money damages, injunctive ...
read more >

In 1973, a black inmate in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff, representing himself, asked the court for money damages, injunctive relief and that he be transferred to a different institution, alleging that defendants, acting under color of law, deprived him of certain of his civil rights in connection with his confinement. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that defendants practiced racial discrimination against him with reference to housing and job assignment, and that he was abused, taunted, subjected to tear gas, placed in maximum segregation without charges being made against him, and denied access to the Courts.

Previously, on October 20, 1972, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections issued a directive that all facilities at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary be integrated and prohibiting racial segregation.

On March 5, 1974, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Judge Frederick A. Daugherty) dismissed the plaintiff's claims. Hill v. Anderson, 381 F. Supp. 906 (E.D. Okla. 1974). With respect to the plaintiff's housing assignment, Judge Daugherty found that the defendants, having substantially integrated the Penitentiary, did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when denying plaintiff's transfer request, did not violate the plaintiff's civil rights as he claims, and that the "Plaintiff [was] not entitled to a specific cell or cellhouse by making a request therefore." With respect to plaintiff's job assignment, Judge Daugherty found that "Plaintiff [was] not entitled to a job assignment of his choice in the prison," and further that the plaintiff presented no evidence as to who declined his request for the desired jobs or why he was not favorably considered. Judge Daugherty held that "it is an essential element of a Civil Rights claim that the particular defendant be personally involved in the alleged denial of the Constitutional Right." Judge Daugherty dismissed the plaintiff's claims of abuse, taunting and subjection to tear gas as having been abandoned for want of evidence. And Judge Daugherty dismissed the plaintiff's claim of being placed in maximum segregation without a charge and being denied access to the Courts as having been refuted by the evidence.